AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Crew can rest on coach

14th April 1984, Page 20
14th April 1984
Page 20
Page 20, 14th April 1984 — Crew can rest on coach
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

ALLEGED drivers' hours offences against Premier Motor Tours (Preston) and one of the company's drivers were dismissed by Preston magistrates after they ruled that he was not a crew member while taking his rest on the coach.

It is understood that the North Western Traffic Commissioners are considering an appeal against the decision.

The driver, Eric Stonehouse, denied exceeding the permitted driving period between two consecutive daily rest periods and failing to take the appropriate daily rest. The company denied permitting the offences.

Prosecuting, Andrew Hanson said that Mr Stonehouse had been with a party on a 12-day holiday to Terrason in France in July last year. On the return journey he drove the vehicle to Paris where he finished driving at 11.40 pm. He then rested on the coach before starting driving again in London at 12.45 pm the following day.

Ron McLaughlin, the company's managing director, said another driver had been sent by train to meet the coach in Paris. Mr Stonehouse had been instructed to go off duty in Paris and resume duty in London.

In evidence, Mr Stonehouse said that he had decided to take his sleeping bag and some pillows and sleep on the back seat of the coach which was very comfortable.

Defending, John Backhouse argued that Mr Stonehouse was free to travel how he wished. He was not a crew member during the period while he was off duty and the regulations that stated that the daily rest period must be taken away from "the vehicle" did not apply.

Clearly they referred to "the vehicle" of which a driver was a crew member.

The magistrates ordered the prosecution to pay £217.50 towards the defence costs.